Author
Topic: 5D III Dynamic Range (Read 40165 times)

You miss the point, she is a way more successful photographer than any of us for whatever reason, but she has the budget to use anything that might get her an edge, she still chooses gear which is regularly denigrated and lambasted on here as being past it. Clearly either she is misguided or the complainers are

no, i was pretty much agreeing exactly with that point.

there seems to be a certain degree of nonsense that comes out in these types of conversations. to suggest the 5D mrk2 is a garbage camera for any reason only serves to discredit those making that claim. stop the nonsense or post a picture proving that the camera is the sole reason holding you back from taking great pictures.

the DR conversation is a bit of a non starter for me for two reasons.

firstly there are a number of work arounds to increasing the dynamic range of a scene that have been around for a long time. i can get all the range i need in my 5Dc. i do the same on the Mrk 2. would extra DR in camera be nice? yes....but it doesn't come even close to negating the cameras usefulness.

secondly, most great photographers seek out great light. the gear they use to record the image is almost superfluous if great light is not present! i have to shoot in all kinds of light due to circumstances and i accept that not all shots i take are going to be the pinnacle of my ability. not because my gear is the shortcoming...but because i am not afforded the luxury of finding the quality of light i know will create a phenomenal photograph.

14 stops of DR will not turn crappy light into great light. it will only marginally improve a photograph that is taken in crappy light. why is that so exciting? you are still left with crappy light.....

i dont get it.

Yea... this is pretty much the conclusion I have come to over several years of these sorts of threads as well. I think that "non-starter" is a pretty apt summary of current state of the whole discussion. If the equipment was as bad as folks like aglet would want us to believe, no one would be using it. However, the reality seems to be the exact opposite in that despite these well-known and well documented limitations, somehow, someway competent photographers continue to achieve excellent results. The limitations don’t seem to be too insurmountable for those who know what they are doing and there seem to be a heck of a lot of people who do because there is a veritable plethora of excellent shots available as examples of this.

Sorry, my mistake, typing this stuff out and then reading a reply hours or days later isn't the most fluid or nuanced way of getting your impressions across!

This forum structure doesn't help a lot either.

No but I prefer it to the DPReview style with sub-threads going off everywhere. Can you choose show all in thread anywhere like you can on Photo.Net? However, whilst the mods have done a great job with the moderation of this thread several key posts have been lost so the context of the whole thing is a bit weird too.

I wondeered what was going on. It had been at 11 pages then droped to 7 with some stuff gone, now creaping back up. Oh well, moderation is good even if it is a bit like hearding cats sometimes.

Cant believe this thread is still puttering along. As far as DR and detail or lack there of... Last night I had a photo review showing with a couple of my models that i did recent photo shoots for and one of them said last night that they almost hate my 5d Mark 3... They said it has so much detail that it shows every imperfection... That, to me, speaks volumes on the quality of the camera more than whether it has 12 or 14 stops of light. Who cares? Back in the film days we had BW film that had very good DR... what did we do? Use contrast filters to kill the DR and make it more punchy or else it was too flat and ugly... this debate is stupid... learn your cameras and stop obsessing about things that really dont matter.

So, as a kind of rebuttal against the DR "issues", I had a play with a file or two.

Image was shot with a 1Ds MkIII, effectively the same sensor as the 5D MkII. Here are two images, they are both screenshots from LR with before to the left and after to the right, first is the full frame the second is a 100% crop, the blue is obviously black warning. It was a test exposure shot at a wedding reception to determine ambient levels, there is no point of focus.

I have included the develop module adjustments panel. The exposure is lifted 5 stops, shadows another 1+ stop, only other adjustment was noise reduction.

Now I don't know about you, but I know I could print this to 8"x10" without issue, particularly if I put some clarity and/or contrast in there and did a white balance etc.

P.S. I have got the nads!

Great, you got nads.But can you do this with a 5d2?!?I already know the old 1DS3 is a good/better camera, so is my ancient 40D, as compared to the 5d2 I had. So this contribution is an "irrelevance."

That's the point, comparing my extremely noisy 5D2 to another 5d2. A 1Ds3 is not "close enough." internal guts are quite different and it's not just the sensor in the equation but every bit of copper and silicon between the pixel and raw file.

So, will someone with 'nads AND a 5d2 care to show how well their camera can perform in this simple test?

So, will someone with 'nads AND a 5d2 care to show how well their camera can perform in this simple test?

I don't have anything handy from a 5DII, but here's something from a classic 5D, shot not long after I got it several years ago.

Two copies. First is the JPEG preview the camera embedded in the raw file. Next is after I last re-did the post processing a few years ago. I'll probably re-visit it again at some point in the future. I've made 12" x 18" prints and been most happy with them.

If the dynamic range of any of the 5D line of cameras prevents you from getting the shot, you have nothing to blame but your own incompetence.

Huh? You can't be serious. You think there's some point in attempting to recover from a shot five stops underexposed? Hell, even three stops underexposed is insane. But five?

totally serious, but you misunderstand.i'm not asking to recover a -5EV shot to 0, or the -4 or the -3.I'm asking you to try this and see how far you can push your 5d2's -3, -4, or -5EV shot before visible pattern noise shows up on a smooth subject. IT IS SIMPLE.In the real world this can by sky, water, various man-made surfaces so it's completely appropriate.

Sorry, I'm not accepting any blame for the camera's metering. i didn't build it or calibrate it.If you know how it works, look at the subject and shooting conditions, you should realize why.Apparently you did not read/comprehend all the info provided. Take more time to understand than to ridicule, it's better all around.

if you have a 5d2 and care to contribute, follow the instructions. If not, sit back, have some popcorn and join the rest of the peanut gallery to watch the drama.

Huh? You can't be serious. You think there's some point in attempting to recover from a shot five stops underexposed? Hell, even three stops underexposed is insane. But five?

totally serious, but you misunderstand.i'm not asking to recover a -5EV shot to 0, or the -4 or the -3.I'm asking you to try this and see how far you can push your 5d2's -3, -4, or -5EV shot before visible pattern noise shows up on a smooth subject. IT IS SIMPLE.

Who gives a flying leap how much noise you've got after pushing exposure five stops? And when on Earth would you push exposure five stops other than if you had forgotten to take the lens cap off?

It's like you're complaining that Michael Jordan was an incompetent athlete because he couldn't throw a 110 mph curveball over the strike zone with a football while wearing a goalie's uniform.

If you seriously think you're being serious, I seriously recommend the help of a licensed mental health professional.

I don't have anything handy from a 5DII, but here's something from a classic 5D, shot not long after I got it several years ago.

Two copies. First is the JPEG preview the camera embedded in the raw file. Next is after I last re-did the post processing a few years ago. I'll probably re-visit it again at some point in the future. I've made 12" x 18" prints and been most happy with them.

If the dynamic range of any of the 5D line of cameras prevents you from getting the shot, you have nothing to blame but your own incompetence.

Cheers,

b&

nice, but another irrelevant comparison/sample.

and again, I'm not talking about dynamic range (DR), altho it is directly affected by noise contentI'm purely interested in the highly offensive appearance of Fixed Pattern Noise (FPN) which is much more of a problem than reduced DR.

Huh? You can't be serious. You think there's some point in attempting to recover from a shot five stops underexposed? Hell, even three stops underexposed is insane. But five?

totally serious, but you misunderstand.i'm not asking to recover a -5EV shot to 0, or the -4 or the -3.I'm asking you to try this and see how far you can push your 5d2's -3, -4, or -5EV shot before visible pattern noise shows up on a smooth subject. IT IS SIMPLE.

Who gives a flying leap how much noise you've got after pushing exposure five stops? And when on Earth would you push exposure five stops other than if you had forgotten to take the lens cap off?

It's like you're complaining that Michael Jordan was an incompetent athlete because he couldn't throw a 110 mph curveball over the strike zone with a football while wearing a goalie's uniform.

If you seriously think you're being serious, I seriously recommend the help of a licensed mental health professional.

Cheers,

b&

I'm only quoting this whole pile above so everyone can clearly see you actually did not understand what I told you.

As such, any further commentary from you will be disregarded until you display adequate comprehension of the problem and can provide valid input. You seem more interested in a brawl than actually exchanging knowledge.

I don't have anything handy from a 5DII, but here's something from a classic 5D, shot not long after I got it several years ago.

Two copies. First is the JPEG preview the camera embedded in the raw file. Next is after I last re-did the post processing a few years ago. I'll probably re-visit it again at some point in the future. I've made 12" x 18" prints and been most happy with them.

If the dynamic range of any of the 5D line of cameras prevents you from getting the shot, you have nothing to blame but your own incompetence.

Cheers,

b&

nice, but another irrelevant comparison/sample.

and again, I'm not talking about dynamic range (DR), altho it is directly affected by noise contentI'm purely interested in the highly offensive appearance of Fixed Pattern Noise (FPN) which is much more of a problem than reduced DR.

So, I give you a nighttime shot with a classic 5D with a very wide dynamic range and shadows lifted at least a couple, maybe a few stops (I honestly don't remember)...and that's not enough to tell you what you need to know?

What, do you think the 5DII has worse noise than the classic? Do you only shoot grey cards and not actual photographs? Have you ever actually wanted to lift shadows more than the extreme amount I did in that shot?

May I recommend? Go learn about the First Rule of Holes before posting further in this thread. It's high past time you did so.